Against the backdrop of the truce
recently offered by Osama bin Laden, I would like to explore the
possibility of whether a truce and peace are possible at all.
Before anything else, we should consider that Islam does not
acknowledge the equal value of other religions or, in general,
belief systems with Islam itself. This is, of course, can only to
be expected from an ideology (for an explanation please see
previous articles). Islam forbids outright paganism and atheism.
The presence of Christians and Jews, within the Islamic state, may
be tolerated if they accept inferior position in regard to Muslims
and pay the Jizya [in effect a money racket paid to Islamic
regimes]. This background of Islamic beliefs must always be taken
into account when dealing with an Islamic entity, or even an
individual.

No doubt, such an attitude, which is
set forth by the Koran, is bound to create difficulties for
Muslims who happen to live in the West and who have to cooperate
with Westerners. Perhaps, a great many Muslims have not read the
Koran and are not aware of the finer points of Islamic teaching,
although they usually assume that all goodness originates from
Islam and the Koran. Perhaps, for Westerners, these are the
"safest" types of Muslims, but they are passive and have no
intellectual power to set up an alternative vision of Islam
vis--vis the traditional Islamic religious authorities.
Muslims who have experienced a deeper indoctrination will have
greater difficulties when they live in liberal democracies. They
need to lead a double life, maintained with unease and a good deal
of hypocrisy, faking and double standards. Because according to a
Hadith [Mohammed's speeches], a Muslim is duty-bound to intervene
physically when he sees a transgression [defined in Islamic terms]
and if he is not able to do that, then he must intervene by his
tongue. If he is not able to do that, then he must, at least,
oppose it in his own heart; but taking the last option is a
manifestation of the weakness of the faith. According to Islam,
the gravest transgression is disbelief in Allah and His apostle
Mohammed - so imagine what a Muslim seeing all these Kafirs who
are all having a good time (in Westerners' term, drinking and
having fun) would be thinking.

An additional, equally disturbing,
transgression for Muslims is the sexual liberation in the West.
Not that Muslims hate sex. Sex should be expected to be the focus
of major interest for Muslim men. After all, Mohammed, who is the
model of the right and good behavior, was definitely obsessed with
sex. No wonder therefore, that the Islamic emperors and Khalifs
and even current Islamic rulers kept or keep tens or even hundreds
of harems. And did not God promise tens of virgins for each good
Muslim? What they hate is female equality and women's freedom in
choosing their partners and the displaying of their charms.
Perhaps, the sight of free women with strong personalities
disturbs them because they set examples that Muslim women might
like to emulate. Or the reason could be the fact that they find
these women attractive and wish to marry some. Perhaps, even their
vision of "the virgins in paradise" might look like Western women.
However, they realize that their method of procuring wives will
not work with Western women and their methods of avoiding
cuckoldry, basically by confining women in their houses, will not
work here either.

What frustrates Muslim men is not only
that they cannot protest and suppress these transgressions but
worse, that they must also repackage themselves so that they are
acceptable to the host communities. However, being pragmatic, as
Mohammed himself was, and recognizing the superiority of the
Western powers as the host communities, Muslims use hypocrisy to
take advantage of the Western values. A clear demonstration of
this hypocrisy is the continual invocation of international laws
/human rights, when they themselves do not believe in them when
they are invoked by others and even some Muslims. In the name of
justice they cry out for the rights of the Palestinians, when all
the while the Koran enjoins them to subdue or put an end to
others' beliefs, and when they have little interest in the
suffering of other people at the hands of Muslims.

However, Muslims aside, the potential
victims of Islam, who are effectively all non-Muslims, must not
settle for the current state of affairs. The only reason that
Europeans and Americans are not treated like the South Sudanese
Christians and animists is the fact that Muslims are still in too
weak a position. In previous articles I have discussed a number of
points that are relevant here. Among those were the reasons that
religions and other ideologies have evolved and the reason that
the ideological institutions assume the nature, structure and
history they assume. Accordingly, it could be said here that
non-Muslims should not delude themselves into expecting peace from
Muslims. An ideology cannot offer peace unless it submits to
liberal democracy and accepts examining and discussing its
worldviews and moral ideas on par with any other idea that does
not claim sanctity or special status.

However, what is interesting in this
regards is bin Laden's attempt to manipulate the Western audience.
No doubt, he is in a desperate situation given that he is
appealing to people whom his terrorists hope and try hard to
destroy en masse. Nonetheless, it would be also interesting
to see how much of this attempt will rub off on the Western
liberal and the frustrated ex-Marxists-turned-Islamic-apologists,
and how far this attempt will buoy them into starting a new
campaign of putting pressure on the US and UK governments. In any
case, this is an interesting start, because, having taken this
route we either directly or indirectly, probably, through the
intermediation of the liberal and ex-Marxists, ask bin Laden to
clarify a few points. Why does he offer only a truce and not a
permanent peace? What would he suggest regarding the Jizya? Will
the "just conditions that we will stick to", he mentions, include
some Jizya and how much the Jizya will it be? What are the Islamic
"just conditions" to live in live in peace with the rest of the
world? What would they suggest regarding the Muslims who live in
the Western countries?

Muslims or their apologists need also
answer another question of a different nature. What do they intend
to do to stop the repression and atrocities in their own
countries? Whether in Sudan, Iraq, Iran or Saudi Arabia or
Pakistan the atrocities at the hands of the repressive regimes or
terrorists groups go on and on. The reasons are clear. In the
absence of liberal democracy; power struggles which should be
expected from humans can only be determined through ideologies,
and ideologies need violence. Muslims may, nowadays, blame the
violence on foreign conspiracies. However, this is false, because
the whole history of Muslims has never been free from bloodshed,
whether that of non-Muslims or of other dissenting Muslims. If
Muslims blame their miseries and shortcomings upon non-Muslims
conspiracies, it would be amusing to see what story of conspiracy
they would be able to concoct to explain the fact that Mohammed's
companions killed each other (see How to respond to Islamic
Terrorism). [i]

Of course, the recent experience of
Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and the ever intensifying judicial and
extra-judicial campaign of murdering the members of opposition
groups in Iran confirms this view. The unrest and lack of liberal
democracy in the Islamic world are also what generates terrorism
worldwide (see my previous articles). So a Muslim, offering peace
to the world, should address the fundamental problems of Islam
that lead to inevitable terrorism and internal and external wars,
namely the absence of commitment to human rights, whether by the
regimes or organizations or even individuals.

No doubt, we should not expect that
the Muslim masses would denounce Islam over night - although this
is exactly what they ought to do, eventually, if they are
concerned with morality as they claim. Muslims, by taking
advantage of the loopholes in the current liberal democratic
understanding of religions which allows legal loopholes, are
bidding their time perhaps (see KPCP for why liberal democracy
looks as it does currently). However, we should expect Western
governments to protect the lives of their citizens and human
civilization. This can only be done by ensuring that Muslims
living in their territories accept minimum initial conditions:
that every Muslim should accept unequivocally, and perhaps
vocally, and acknowledge that the rules and values of liberal
democracy override any religious teaching or Islamic rules, and
that he or she should not prevent or hinder any person, whether
members of his or her own family or community, from exercising the
rights and freedoms that a liberal democracy provides. Muslims who
impose their practices and culture on the members of their
community or family regardless of their wishes are also the main
contributor to the formation of ghettos and a ghetto mentality.
Moreover, declaring the supremacy of liberal democratic rules and
values over Islamic ones should also imply that the Mosques that
want to operate will have to convey such submission clearly and
unequivocally through their teaching and preaching.

Neglecting these requirements will no
doubt result in, sooner or later, overtaking Europe and the whole
world by Islamic culture and tradition. The free world should not
wait until Islamic countries possess atomic bombs and threaten
human survival. Nor should the free world wait to be consumed from
inside. Islam, like other ideologies, can only bring savagery to
humanity. What should the liberal democracies expect from people
who display human slaughtering? And what should the world expect
from people whose "prophet" allowed himself and his thugs to take
captive women as sex slaves?

Perhaps, liberal democracies have been
lucky that Osama bin Laden has started the modern Islamic war of
conquest prematurely! Now he may have realized his mistake and
wants a respite. The West needs to recognize that bin Laden is
insignificant and that, the real threat is looming which will pale
the current crises into insignificance, if nothing is done. The
needed measures should have taken decades ago. It is not too late
yet. Taking the measures suggested here may require only limited
force to contain violent opposition expected from some Muslims. To
do nothing will result in much greater violent destruction in the
future, that is if humanity survived Islam at all. There is still
room for measures to be carried out without, or with minimum,
force. Waiting longer will only increase the potential for a much
more violent confrontation.

This evolutionary political theory I
am offering, makes explaining the needed policies easy. The
Western authorities can put forward the conditions and the
arguments in their support openly and need not resort to any
underhand methods. This theory can explain the history and nature
of Islam to themselves and to others, and ask the Muslims to give
up selfishness and delusion for their own sake for the sake of and
human civilization.

[i]
Similar discord and perhaps liquidation happened in Iran.
Khomeini put Shariatmadari and Ayatollah Montazeri under
house. Shariatmadari was even higher in religious rank than
Khomeini. It was Shariatmadari who accorded Khomeini the title
of Ayatollah, a move that saved him from execution. Montazeri
was to be Khomeini's successor. There were also rumors that
Khomeini followers killed Ayatollah Talakani, who was more
left leaning but moderate in regard to application of Islam.
The case is very obvious. It is not a matter of lucky
coincidence that liberal democracies do not suffer from
violence among the competitors for political power. Nor it is
coincidence that all ideological systems have suffered
violence and some still do.